Why (I Believe) Protestants Should Reconsider Purgatory
January 21, 2008
Ask a typical evangelical Christian what will happen to his soul when he dies, and he will likely respond, “Well, it will go straight to heaven, of course.” Having been surrounded by evangelical Protestantism my whole life (I grew up in evangelical churches, attended preschool and elementary school at an evangelical Christian academy, graduated from an evangelical Christian university, and am now studying at an evangelical theological institution) this is what I grew up hearing and believing. As such, the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory, the Eastern Orthodox idea that the soul awaits final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead,’ and suchlike, were off-limits because they were too “Catholic”—and, quite candidly, they seemed rather fantastical to me anyway.
Now, however, try as I might, I simply cannot reconcile the traditional evangelical Protestant understanding of the course of the afterlife with both Scripture and reason. As a result, I’ve found the notion of purgatory—or perhaps the Eastern Orthodox and similar Calvinist conceptions of the soul consciously awaiting final judgment, or perhaps better yet some blend of the two—to better suit both my own reasoning (inasmuch as I have reasoned it out) and what little can be gleaned from Scripture about the matter. My rationale follows in list form.
1. Scripture has precious little to say about the matter, at least in explicit terms. What can be gleaned comes only through implicit references, many of which, at times, seem inconsistent. Evangelicals sometimes argue that in fact there are explicit passages supporting the oft-quoted mantra “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Indeed, there are at most a handful of passages that, at first glance, may seem to support the traditional Protestant view in a fairly straightforward way (cf. e.g. Deut 18:10-12; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:21-23; 1 Pet 3:18). When read carefully and honestly, however, it is quite obvious that these passages no more explicitly support the notion of immediate entrance into heaven at death than the notion of something like purgatory. Some of them, in fact, are about something else altogether.
To be fair, the passages cited by Roman Catholics in support of purgatory are foggy as well (cf. e.g. Matt 18:23-25; 1 Cor 3:11-15; 1 Pet 3:19; 2 Tim 1:16-18; Rev 21:27), though it hardly needs mention.
It seems clear to me, then, that the precise course of the afterlife cannot be definitively determined sola scriptura. But Scripture does not rule out either of these views—no, not even something like purgatory!
2. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. This is a rudimentary theme that dominates Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. If God cannot tolerate the presence of sin, then one cannot enter God’s full presence if one is not entirely pure in heart, that is to say in Wesleyan terms, entirely sanctified (cf. Rev 21:27).
So, what of those who aren’t yet entirely sanctified when they die? Their debt has been paid and they will surely enter heaven, but they cannot enter still marred to any degree by sin. The encounter with God requires holiness. Protestant theology, insofar as I perceive it, has failed to satisfactorily answer the question it was left with when it rejected the doctrine of purgatory five hundred years ago.
3. The final judgment has not yet occurred. Obviously. In general, Christians agree that when one dies, one experiences particular judgment, that is, the immediate judgment of one’s eternal destiny. And then what until the final judgment? Here is where the road splits in many directions. Without taking the time to expound all of the nuances and distinctions of Christian theology on this matter, all of which I am not familiar with anyway, I will simply say that the Eastern Orthodox explication of the state of the soul between particular judgment and final judgment is the most satisfactory to my own reasoning.
The Eastern Orthodox understanding is that after death, the soul awaits the final judgment in the ‘abode of the dead.’ Depending on whether one is judged righteous or unrighteous at particular judgment, one’s experience while awaiting final judgment will be that of paradise or suffering—a foretaste of one’s ultimate destiny after the final judgment, but not yet the full experience of heaven or hell. Calvin held a very similar understanding. Insofar as I perceive it, this explanation deals most directly and logically with the position of the soul between the particular and final judgments and the bodily resurrection, though it is not without difficulties, of course.
4. It’s tradition. Like it or not, Protestants, tradition is highly important to Christian theology—and I’m not talking about red carpet and hymn books. When Scripture is vague on certain questions of theology, we must look to the next most authoritative thing, which is Christian tradition. Much of what Christians understand about God, salvation, etc. that cannot be found explicitly within the pages of Scripture has been handed down to us from the very earliest Christians, who were instructed by the apostles, who were students of Jesus. Although in many cases it took several hundred years before certain doctrines became fully developed, most can ultimately be traced back to, or at least very near to, apostolic teaching. Christian tradition, then, must be authoritative (though, of course, it isn’t infallible).
Though the dogmatic definition of purgatory and the name “purgatory” were not developed until the thirteenth century, the notion was dominant from Christianity’s inception. The notion of purgatory may be found in rather precise terms in the writings of many of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Clement (c. 150-215), Origen (c. 185-254), Chrysostom (c. 347-407), and Augustine (354-430). Even Paul offered a prayer for his departed friend Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18), from which we may infer that Paul must have understood the soul of Onesiphorus to be in something like purgatory.
My hunch is that, when the reformer Martin Luther rejected the doctrine of purgatory in the sixteenth century, his contention was primarily with the practice of indulgences, and that contention resulted ultimately in his rejection of purgatory. I could be wrong, of course. But it is certain that, when Luther rejected the notion of purgatory, he discounted and discarded 1500 years of Christian tradition. Perhaps he was right—but 1500 years of Christian tradition handed down from the earliest Church Fathers, and perhaps even the apostles and Jesus, is a thing to be carefully and prayerfully reckoned with.
Conclusion
Plenty more could be said, naturally. After thinking on this for several months, however, I am inclined to believe that purgatory, or something like it, indeed does exist, and necessarily must. Perhaps it is the case that at death, souls experience particular judgment and then await the final judgment and the bodily resurrection in the abode of the dead, either in paradise or anguish, at which time those souls who are not yet entirely sanctified may become prepared to enjoy God’s full presence in heaven. Perhaps I’m wrong.
What do you think?

You may be right. Even if there isn’t a purgatory, I’m not certain that Christians (or non-Christians, for that matter) go straight to their reward.
There is, of course, a danger in a belief in purgatory, namely that we can slack up on evangelism, or on our own behavior.
Very true. Thanks for bringing that up, Dr. LaBar. I don’t think, after experiencing particular judgment, one’s ultimate eternal destiny could be changed after death. I hope, then, that Christians wouldn’t slack up on evangelism thinking that they could pray someone out of hell, etc. I certainly can see how such a belief might cause one to slack up on one’s own behavior, though — and I’m quite sure that happens.
That is an important point. Thanks once again for bringing it up.
Why Catholic CHurch believes in purgatory? I tried to explaion it in my posts. If you are interested to read them, visit my blog and click purgatory category.
Why Catholic CHurch believes in purgatory? I tried to explaion it in my posts. If you are interested to read them, visit my blog and click purgatory category.
I think Luther’s rejection of Purgatory rested not simply on the sale of indulgences, but also on the notion of Purgatory as a place where the soul is further purified in order to be worthy to enter Paradise. Which by the way, your statement of Purgatory perhaps being a place were those not entirely sanctified can become so sounds eerily similar to that Catholic Dogma. You know my theology so you can probably guess that I believe something in the proximity with Calvin. (although I never researched his stance on it, thank you for letting me what his view was)
Check out Luke 16:19-31
Verses 22-23 are noteworthy for this conversation
It says (depending on translation) that Lazarus (not the one raised by Jesus of course) was lifted up by the angels to “Abraham’s bosom” (NASU, KJV) or “Abraham’s side” (ESV) or simply “to be with Abraham” (NLT) or even somewhat humorously as “to the lap of Abraham” (Mess).
This in contrasted with the rich man who is in “Hades” or “Hell” where he is tormented.
To brush this off as simply a parable would not be doing parables justice. Jesus used reality in order to illuminate spiritual reality. So it makes since that could argue that based on His pattern of teaching, that this must be a reality (perhaps a simplified or even dramatized version of it with Lazarus looking down and seeing the rich man)
Ultimately, I see that the notion of an intermediate state where one works towards perfection in order to earn or merit closeness with God is un-Biblical and downright heretical. The Reformation correctly placed our righteousness as being imputed by Christ, therefore, no more work is necessary. Sins have been purged. Therefore, the idea that one must be entirely sanctified in order to enter the presence of God demerits the work of Christ, and simply man a work to perform.
Yes, I think our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters are right about that, though I’m ultimately more drawn to the Eastern Orthodox/Calvinist understanding, which seems to be a bit closer to the understanding of the earliest Christians.
I have explored the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke, but I see now that I didn’t include it in the list of references in my post. Insofar as I (and quite a few real scholars) understand this parable, it appears to be one of the most straightforward NT glimpses into the ancient Jewish understanding of the course of the afterlife — and in it, both Lazarus and the rich man are apparently in Hades, though they are separated by a “great chasm” and are experiencing different rewards.
The noun ‘hades’ must not automatically be equated with hell, because it simply refers to an ‘abode of the dead,’ very similar to the Hebrew idea of ’sheol’ (which, in the LXX, is translated as ‘hades’). And it is clear that, both for ancient Jews and Greco-Romans, the souls of both the righteous and the unrighteous were often thought to rest (or suffer) in hades (or, for Hebrews, sheol), which seems to be what we have in this parable from Luke. Biblical authors, by and large, do not seem to be concerned with precision about the course of the afterlife. (For a good example of this, see the Testament of Abraham 20:14. This is also evident throughout Paul’s letters, and within other NT books — probably Luke, too.) The concern seems to be with the ultimate fate of an individual rather than the precision regarding the ‘how.’
I do not and would not brush this off as a parable (and I know, of course, that you don’t accuse me of that — I’m just clarifying). It is Scripture. But we must be aware of such things as context (textual, historical, cultural, etc.) and literary style, lest we misinterpret it. Jesus did indeed use parables to illuminate spiritual reality; but we must be careful to draw out the truth Jesus intended to express through the parable and not to focus on those stylistic details that are not intended to express spiritual truths. In the case of this parable, I think the truth that Jesus intends to convey is that those (such as the money-loving Pharisees to whom he is speaking) who indulge in good things and high status in this life will be tormented; likewise, those righteous ones who suffer in this life will receive consolation. To draw out of it stylistic and literary details and regard them spiritual truths may be missing the point, I think.
I think I may have been unclear in my post, because I didn’t intend to suggest that one works for sanctification in this ‘intermediate state.’ Sanctification, of course, cannot be earned by works, neither in this earthly life or during purgation (if indeed there is such a thing). I should also note that Roman Catholics, in general, that ‘work’ is not done to purge sins in purgatory. This, I think, is a fairly common misunderstanding among Protestants.
Sanctification has nothing to do with works of human beings. It is about the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. And this in no way demerits the work of Christ — it exalts it. Because of Christ’s work on the cross, his righteousness does not simply have to be imputed to us. We may (and must!) become righteous — not by works, of course, but by the work of the Spirit. Ultimately, this honors and exalts Christ’s work, certainly more than only imputation. Naturally, we will disagree on this sanctification/purgation issue because of our differences in theology. Whatever our differences in theology, though, I’m glad to be your Christian brother!
Thanks for your comment. I had to do a little thinking, and that’s a good thing.
Great discussion, guys! I’m enjoying being a “fly on the…blog wall.” Benji, that last paragraph on your last comment about sanctification exalting Christ’s work in us…that is powerful. Thank you for using all the intellectual ability that Jesus formed in you in order to serve Him well!
Thank you for clarifying for me more precisely that piece of Wesleyan Theology. I have never boasted much more than a cursory knowledge of it. I believe that further comments on it would require face to face conversating. Not that I’m trying to make you Reformed, just that I enjoy talking of these things. So, could you make it down to Anderson this evening so we can talk when I get off of work?
I wish I could! I enjoy talking about such things with you, too. It’s challenging, and I learn a lot.
I would say that I hope married life is going well, but I know it is. Enjoy it!